On May 15, 2026 Pope Leo XVI released his encyclical letter, Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificant Humanity), on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence. The Papal letter is saturated with a single word, which is used more than one hundred times, and that word is dignity.
Pope Leo dedicates much of his second chapter to differentiating between the forms of dignity (moral, social, existential, and ontological). He clarifies the fundamental meaning of human dignity and the ontological form of human dignity which is indelible, as opposed to those which are capable of change. Leo’s apostolic art of dispelling confusion lays the necessary foundation for the very thing that needs to be safeguarded most concerning the human person; his dignity.
Clarification is necessary within the confines of modern language, which often dilutes or fails to distinguish forms of weighty matter, such as love and dignity. For instance, when we use the word love, our English vernacular fails to differentiate between the forms our affection takes and the relationships it bears. The same word is used to describe our sentiment about our mother, spouse, or favorite pizza place. Context is our only benefactor when it comes to the word “love”, so that we might not confuse an emotion toward pizza with one’s mother.
C.S. Lewis categorized the four basic kinds of human love into modes of affection, friendship, erotic love and the love of God. This echoed the terminology of the ancient Greeks, who used the words agape (unconditional love), eros (romantic love), philia (deep friendship), and storge (familial love) to describe the manner of their affection in relation to the recipient. Latin follows the Greek closely in using language to differentiate between forms of love, employing the terms: caritas (charity/selfless love), amor (romantic/deep familial affection), amicitia (friendship) and dilectio (choose/esteem/favor), while adding pietas (duty) and cupido (desire, lust). Because language is so important to accurately communicate intentionality, and harbor just accountability, the distinction between the words for love are necessary.
For instance, recall the scripture passage from John 21:15-17, when Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him. If we read this in the original Greek, then the first time Jesus asks Peter, he says, “agapas me” (do you love me with a selfless and unconditional love), to which Peter answers, “philō se” (I love you as a dear friend/brother). The second time, Jesus repeats, “agapas me?”, and again Peter answers, “philō se”. The third time, Jesus changes the context of his question. Peter is grieved because Jesus asks him, “phileis me?”, to which Peter affirms a third time when he answers, “philō se”.
These three affirmations of Peter’s love for Jesus comprise restitution for the three times Peter denied Jesus during his Passion. Yet, in the reading of the original Greek, Peter is not yet able to elevate his affirmation of love to the level that Jesus is asking. Still, Jesus accepts Peter’s imperfect love and institutes him as the chief pastor of the universal Church, delegating Peter’s great pastoral authority.
When St. Jerome translates the bible from Greek to Latin in the 4th century, he faces the challenge of synthesizing two unparalleled languages without losing context. Jerome strove for precision as he painstakingly brough the Scriptures to the vernacular. Interestingly, in the case of John 21, the Latin responses are as follows between Jesus and Peter:
“diligis me?” (do you choose me) - “amo te” (I love you)
“diligis me?” (do you choose me) - “amo te” (I love you)
“amas me?” (do you love me) - “amo te” (I love you)
In this context, it appears that Jesus is elevating his question from a rational and conscious act of the will to a love that is more instinctive. St. Augustine contested this however, stating in chapter 7 of The City of God that the scriptures, “make no distinction between amor, dilectio, and caritas”. He resolved that, “The right will is, therefore, well-directed love, and the wrong will is ill-directed love.” For an Augustinian, love of God is the most well-ordered love and the greatest. Other loves are justly ranked below. The English language certainly has nothing to add or argue in this translation discussion, as love has only one word to cover a multitude of meanings, and none measures the direction of the will.
Let us turn our gaze now from love to dignity, as it is an equally perplexing word that is often misunderstood and misused. In Pope Leo’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, he addresses these weighty distinctions concerning human dignity. He writes:
“When we speak of dignity, we do not always use the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, namely the way in which a person directs his or her choices and actions. At other times, we think of social dignity, which refers to a person’s living conditions and the concrete respect received from society. In other cases, we refer to existential dignity, meaning the way in which a person perceives his or her own worth and the value of life. These aspects of dignity can be enhanced or diminished. In addition to these notions, there is also the more profound and important level of ontological dignity. This is the dignity that belongs to every human being simply by virtue of existing, of having been willed, of being created and loved by God. No sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life that God has willed and called into being.”
These important distinctions clarified by the Holy Father emphasize the gravity of our human dignity, specifically our ontological dignity that cannot be lost or diminished. This is the greatest dignity the human person possesses. It is unmerited and yet it belongs to each of us, not because of who we are, but because of who the Father that willed us is. Our ontological dignity is proved by the fact that we exist. We cannot diminish the reality of our creation in the image and likeness of God, nor his love for us, which exists outside of time.
Many people will find freedom in this message. It will be particularly restorative to those living with the shameful impression that their humiliating actions and choices have caused them to lose the value of their life. The weight of their sin is perceived as a burden that cannot be unyoked and must hereafter define their nature, permanently severing them from the God who can save them. Social scrutiny has become their loudest judge of dignity and the concrete respect received from society its greatest currency. Pope Leo contradicts this however, stating that, “Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective.” When our value as human beings is measured in this way, easily replaced and dispensable, then we have redefined dignity altogether.
While our mission as Christians must center on upholding human dignity in all its aspects (moral, social, existential, and ontological), we must be particularly vigilant to remain focused on our ontological dignity. This is supreme and directs us to live the virtue of charity ourselves and toward others. In this regard, we understand what Pope St. John Paul II meant when he said that human dignity is “infinite”. Our ontological dignity is not merited by our actions, for or against our conscience, as we exercize daily our God-given freedom.
When we willingly act in opposition to love, vis-à-vis our moral action of freedom, we are capable of bringing about much evil. These actions are “not dignified”, as they result in a real loss of one’s moral dignity. If, in these cases, ontological dignity did not exist, the loss of dignity would be unredeemable, and the person would lose value in the same fashion as a damaged object or ill-tempered animal.
There are other forms of dignity which are also capable of suffering reduction or loss. Social dignity, for example, occurs when a person’s living conditions are impoverished beyond basic human needs and thereby contradict the ontological dignity of the person. This is considered a humanitarian crisis and should be met with humanitarian aid. Existential dignity can likewise obscure our ontological dignity, not because of social poverty, but rather the poverties of “peace, joy, and hope”. This situation may be the consequence of a turbulent and unstable home or insecure living environment, which in turn affects a person’s perception of his own worth or value. It is important to impress the point that each human being is an individual, endowed with a rational nature (even if unable to fully exercise or perfect those capacities), and is fundamentally gifted with his human dignity.
Humanity is truly magnificent because of our created genesis in the family of God and our infinite value, which is unending in each human soul. The prority of human rights is to safeguard human dignity in all its respects. In returning to the example from John 21, we are called by Christ to orient ourselves to his goodness so that we may fully respond to his love. Like Peter, our own love can grow and mature, allowing us to live up to the full measure of our dignity. Perhaps in our age of technical innovations, we must ask which of these innovations enhances and assists our dignity. We must approach them as Pope Leo XIV offers, asking, “Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal?”
Sources
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.